Not Quite

So.. I don’t think option A has a prayer. Buttttttt we’ll keep it up anyway so the stragglers that only visit every other week or so feel like they could participate too. Thanks everyone who voted.

Speaking of voting, I also thank everyone who’s been voting on the “Top Webcomics” link (right-hand column of the page links you to the vote.). We went from some obscure 600+ number to finally getting under 300.

I also got a very nice link-in last week for comic of the week. Thanks Webcast Beacon.

O.o!? There were more girls? What a slime ball! I thought he was just going after Quinn’s room mates, but apparently he’s been busy. I was always curious about what he did when he wasn’t in the story lol.

I have to argue against that statement, to a degree. There is no question that Alex is a pervert, but artists for the most part are not.

Some time back over on DA there was a rather lengthy discussion on the topic of artwork/images that contained mature content. A lot of people were for removing all of said images from the site without a second thought. Another group however was against this, I was part of the second group.

My argument at the time, and to this day, is that the intention of the image is more important than the image itself. There is a very fine line between artistic and pornographic. That line is, the intent of the image.

The human body can be a very beautiful thing, as can a sword or even a gun. But when it is used to harm another, it ceases to be art. Likewise someone can appreciate the beauty of a person just as they can a work of art.

Misusing ones skills however, as Alex has here, is the most literal sense of perversion there is.

Honestly, I hope to see Quinn and Ellie meet with these other ladies and have a little fun getting back at Alex. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Multipled…well, it aint pretty lol

Sounds like another version of the art vs. comic debate as well. Wasn’t it Calvin and Hobbes who did that? Can’t recall. But I do sort of agree with you to a point. I would however have to argue that if anyone did a live model interpretation of a Georgia O’Keeffe photographic extreme closeup, then I would have to argue that even abstract that the use of the subject material in question could be ultimately pornographic in nature as what other reason besides anatomical could there be in nature?

“My argument at the time, and to this day, is that the intention of the image is more important than the image itself. There is a very fine line between artistic and pornographic. That line is, the intent of the image.”

However, with this defense, I wonder- since both art and pornography are meant to be enjoyed, should pornography be safe as well? I’ve never liked the idea of censorship (an artist’s image ought to be protected), so even in the case of pornography, I don’t feel that it’s intentionally bad, at least, as long as all parties consent, of course.

What Alex has done was to INTENTIONALLY insult and humiliate Ellie, therefore, I wouldn’t say that any protection should extend to his artwork.

I realllly dont want to get into the censoreship debate, I believe there should be a degree of censorship personally. I also feel that pronography is NOT art. If anything, the ‘nicest’ lable I would attach to it would be entertainment. The only reason I am willing to be that nice is because of the fact that what many consider entertainment others have a far less positive outlook on.

Take hunting or fishing for example. Many consider either to be a viable form of entertainment. Others, such as myself, consider it animal cruelty.

Same is true for gambling. Some consider it entertainment, others consider it an addictive waste of time.

I do not wish to get into a fight or arguement, I’m simply repeating the statements I made back then, which I continue to make on DA. Just because something is ‘meant to be enjoyed’ does not make it art.

I wasn’t trying to make it a debate- only voicing my agreement with you. And if you think there should be a degree of censorship, that’s entirely your choice.

I didn’t word what I wanted to say very well. But basically, I’m of the opinion that if an artist has created what s/he believes to be tasteful artwork that contains nudity, it should be protected. However, there are others who believe that nudity shouldn’t be displayed at all, and is distasteful in all forms, and therefore should be censored. In the eyes of those who disagree with the artist’s vision, censorship should be enacted.

The problem with that, is that who makes the call of what’s acceptable and what isn’t? I don’t believe that it should fall to any individual or special interest groups, because that would undoubtedly lead to disastrous results. For a historical example, look to the sculptures of the Renaissance. They were tasteful examples of human perfection, but were “castrated” by those who disagreed with the image.

Whoo, I didn’t mean for this to get so serious! My point is, I agreed with what you said. And I’m not a big fan of censorship. And I don’t think all artistic types are perverse. But Alex certainly is.

After initially disagreeing with your comment – “I believe there should be a degree of censorship…” What? Fascist!! – I read the rest of it, and I do agree with the general point of view as described in the last bit of your comment: enjoyability != artistic.

There are a lot of artistic things that I enjoy. But there are a lot of things that I enjoy that are not art. And similarly there are a lot of things that are artistic that I do not enjoy. Though I can still appreciate them.

Doesn’t matter. It’s his creation, and therefore his personal interpretation of the subject matter and valid under any freedom of speech argument. However, if the portrait was based on a similar matter of capturing said subject as W.K.R.P where one of the girls signed a release form and the photographer had a one way mirror wall and took pictures of said girl changing, that would be a trap and while technically legal, totally slime.

Alex, as far as we know, did not break any laws and just tried to bully Ellie into submission, however, he did follow through on his threat through his talents and interpretation as best as he knew without any ill gotten reference materials.

“So I raided his dorm for my stuff… and miscellaneous valuables.” Wait… did Quinn just admit to stealing?? I suppose the girls have a BIT more maturing to do- can’t expect them to become responsible adults that quickly.

I’m also curious as to what Quinn saw in Alex’s earlier sketches. What would cause her to make a face like THAT?? Something really nasty, I suppose…

We’ll see how Ellie takes it, but if Ellie’s personality was like mine, her reply would be “No, really, I wasn’t lying when I said I never made out with him… and don’t accuse me of lying.” And she wouldn’t be smiling when she said it.

But then Ellie is her own character, not a clone of my personality. That’s probably my favorite thing about this comic: strong, believable characters that the story treats with respect.

P.S. I’m wondering if Ellie has ever passionately made out with anyone. Presumably in high school she was fending off male attention with a stick, but did she fend off 100% of the attention or did she have boyfriends? I don’t remember this being discussed at any point, but maybe it will be soon.

For some reason, I’m thinking of the Jake and what’s her name cheerleader chick from “Sixteen Candles.” She seemed to be a bit too shallow to be able to keep a serious relationship. However, while Ellie may have (we/I don’t know) made out, seeing what’s been going on with her older sisters may have tempered her wanton lust in that department a bit.

I think I just got this. Is Quinn in the last panel acknowledging that Ellie didn’t ever make out with Alex, by making a joking comment with ironic tones and body language? Is she saying the opposite of what she actually means as a joke?

I didn’t get that from the comic, but from the discussion. Maybe the next bit of dialog will make it more clear?

On the tame side of “miscellaneous valuables,” have you seen the prices on art supplies? There’s a reason artists are always broke (one of many).

On a serious note, there’s items of pride, gifts to be ungiven, and legitimate valuables that can be taken. If she took his sketchbook with plans to pass it around campus, or to show campus security/admissions as a means of getting a lawsuit against him (which isn’t her characterization)….

No grand larceny need to have happened.

And that is an excellent face in panel 2. Along with Kirby Cat (and probably Alex’s “friends'” faces), I think we’re getting close to another potential group of gravatars.

Tip of the iceberg, oh haha… so does that mean they were all in the same lame pose as he drew Ellie? Or that some drawings were a bit more… graphic… than Ellie’s. I’m guessing from Quinn’s face it must have been the latter. Or maybe she just found KK’s page. Not that I’m saying KK isn’t cute as a button (of the cuter variety of buttons), just that Quinn probably never pictured her that way, all disproportional and immune to gravity. Every artist has a style, and that does seem to be Alex’s style.

Also, Ellie, you can still kick his crotch. Just wait for him to recover then BAM! Or better yet, send someone he doesn’t know… Have you seen that movie “What Happens in Vegas”? Terrible flick (warning: contains Ashton Kutcher), but during the credits, a guy’s sitting at home when his doorbell rings, so he opens the door and Lake Bell junk-punches him out of nowhere. He screams, “Why?!” and she just says, “You know why,” and leaves. Best part of the whole movie.

That’s a pretty funny angle I didn’t think of. Actually, this comic was to show Quinn now genuinely believes Ellie had no interest in her boyfriend, through sarcasm. This comic was edited severely. It was originally three times as long with Quinn alluding to what was drawn, but it would’ve been overkill. It’s been well established Alex has problems, so I didn’t need to linger on it.